How did the early Muslim Caliphates treat Christians and Jews?

How did the early Muslim Caliphates treat Christians and Jews?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#cite_note-The_World_at_Six_Billion.2C_1999-7
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/muslims-and-jews/muslims-and-jews-in-history/history-of-the-jews-in-yemen.html
projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/muslims-and-jews/muslims-and-jews-in-history/bibliography.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

For the most part very tolerantly. They usually just left them alone. This wasn't done out of a sense of altruism though; keep in mind that at this point in history the Middle East was basically made up entirely of Christians, so if the Muslims started treating them like shit there'd be huge rebellions everywhere.

They could pay a tax and generally get left alone. That being said, they were socially locked out of the elite groups of society. The point was that conversion to Islam brought with it a host of benefits that made it very attractive to people who weren't super committed to their religion.

How about the non-abrahamic religions, I know they quickly got to India, were they just as tolerant to the Hindus or were they immediately in conflict because muh polytheism

They treated them pretty well compared to the Christian kingdoms to non-Christians.

Btw this is me(OP) talking, that was a secondary question

meme

genocide is the best way to describe how the Hindus where treated.

they where treated tolerably and allowed to keep going as they where on the day to day level.
So you could keep going to your church. But never build a new one, have one that was nicer than the local mosques, repair it without permission and if a muslim decided to wreck it you had no recourse.
You could still get married. But a christian could never marry a muslim women but a muslim could marry a christian women. And if said muslim man had a kid with a christian the kid must be raised muslim.
Any act of violence against a muslim is punishable (often with enslavement or death) even if it is in self defense.
A christian must offer a muslim hospitality even in their churches.

So if a muslim decides to crash for the night in your church and have his way with your daughter you could only stand there and watch. If you so much as gave a peep of with your head. And if after he's done raping your daughter he burns down the church no more church to you.

it was a system made to keep christians and jews down but alive so they would keep paying taxes. But in every case the muslim would win against them in the courts of "law". And taking things in your own hands is not a good idea since you are banned from owning arms or a horse so you'd need to have at the blackguard with a can riding a donkey.

Similarly to how you treat rats you find in the cupboard

so they were treaty pretty shit but not as bad as ISIS treats them, right?

*treated

oh no ISIS is the logical conclusion of how they where treated back then.
I mean look at a muslim the wrong way and of with your head. Shit was pretty brutal.
But they needed the christains and jews so they couldn't go about killing all of them.
ISIS just reached the conclusion that they don't need the christians and jews so they can go about killing all of them.
It is not that the ancient muslims didn't want to but that they couldn't get away with it. Not that the west has become a bunch of pansies and no longer care about the mistreatment of christians in the middle east it's open season.

we urgently need a new crusade to set the fuckers back in their place.

>new crusade
a new crusade is wholly unrealistic, how would we even pull that off, even if we wanted to, it would just be a massive loss of life for Christians and Muslims alike causing centuries of renewed enmity

>causing centuries of renewed enmity
you say it like it's a bad thing
the muslims are still out for our blood but large parts of the west have forgotten this.
All we would need for a new crusade is to A) grow some balls B) get and african pope C)go slap muslims around like we already are but now without the thin veneer of "muh war on terror"
simply tell them "you have mistreated the christians in your land long enough it's time for us to chastise you"

you a catholic? in this scenario would the pope officially "call" a crusade. The UN wouldn't be happy nor would the United States, Russia or China (mostly Russia and China)

>keep in mind that at this point in history the Middle East was basically made up entirely of Christians,

No it wasn't, unless you think Iran is not part of the Middle East. And I believe the majority of Jews were there as well. The list goes on.

>if the Muslims started treating them like shit there'd be huge rebellions everywhere.

That never stopped anyone before. It was already happening before they took over.

>china
would not give fuck since it is not in there sphere of influence. If anything they'd like the idea. They've their own troubles with muslims and a large catholic population so you know fun things may happen.

>russia
Putin would mostly be okay with this as long as it is directed at places that are not his bitch. He'd play it to get some other arab countries to quickly become his bitch tough

>US and UN
the un is useless and can do nothing.
the US is infested with liberals but I can see the idea of going on a good ol wholesome crusade catching on with the military. Plenty of serving and vets that have a bone to pick with haji and this time rules of engagement isn't going to hold them back

>China's sphere of influence
any future crusade would certainly include Egypt and North Africa, and China is heavily investing in Africa (soft power and all that shit)
>Putin would be ok with it
no he wouldn't, no way in hell. Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran would all be targets of a hypothetical future crusade and Putin wouldn't fucking like his big allies in the region being invaded by the mostly catholic west
>un is useless and can do nothing
what are the catholic countries going to do? ignore the UN and get sanctioned/invaded into oblivion? as I said before China and Russia won't have any of their crusading nonsense
>US is infested with liberals
we are split half and half conservative and liberals
>but I can see the idea of a crusade catching on with the military
are you fucking serious? why the hell would they wan't to go to the middle east, waste their live in service of the Pope and fight an unwinnable war. I have already eliminated North Africa and the Shia Crescent as crusade targets so that just leaves the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. The US would never even begin to think about invading them, they give us a lot of oil and house the 5th fleet. In conclusion, you're idea of a crusade is retarded.

>compared to t
Who the fuck asked for a comparison? The fact that it's your initial response makes me distrust everything else you spew.

>Plenty of serving and vets that have a bone to pick with haji and this time rules of engagement isn't going to hold them back
1. the serving members of the military take orders from the president and generals, as I already explained they wouldn't be on board with a crusade. Since vets are private citizens, they could participate if they wanted to.

It's time to dispel this lie that Hindus were given 'genocide' during Islamic rule in India. there are several claims in this loaded statement.
Claim 1. the Islamization of India was an event

Claim 2.That the aforementioned event involved at least 80 million deaths and was the bloodiest event in human history. This claim will be refuted in a point by point manner:
Claim 1. Islamization of India

I'm unsure what even they are referring to but a basic knowledge of global history would show that India is not even remotely majority Muslim even when the original border including Pakistan and Bangladesh are taken into account. The first major Muslim kingdom in India proper outside of the conquests by the ummayad dynasty was the Ghurid dynasty which was not noted for being especially brutal and would be hard-pressed to achieve a 80 million killed figure given that the world population was only around 400 million at the time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#cite_note-The_World_at_Six_Billion.2C_1999-7

The Delhi Sultanate was the main Muslim successor kingdom and was noted for being relatively tolerant of Hindus, they also grew out of the collapse of the preceding kingdom so there origin was not especially brutal. There ending by the timurs might be what constitutes the Islamization of India but that was a Muslim vs Muslim war which would also be hard-pressed to achieve the 80% figure. The Mughal empire was a similar beast that was also noted to not be especial insistent in spreading Islam at the sword point en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate

Continued

Refuting claim 2: 80 million deaths

The 80 million death figure would have been ridiculous unfeasible to achieve as it would have constituted a full 20% of the world population at the earliest Islamic excursion and even if we accept that's the total figure of all Hindus killed by Muslim. It's smaller than the death toll from the black death which killed a 100 million people. Adding the death count of world-war 1 and 2 would also give a larger death count and could be done under a similar methodology used to achive the 80 million figure . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

Lol, Hindoos are just butthurt and make up figures for >muh genocide
If the Muslims wanted to genocide them there wouldn't be any hindus left since a 1000 year genocide would have finished them all off. India is majority hindu and there are 1 Billion + hindus today. If there was "muh genocide" then things don't add up.

What liberal bullshit, they were persecuted and had to pay a huge tax.

>muh taxation
I mean, yeah, by today's standards the early Muslim rule would be bullshit.

At the time it was the first widespread establishment of a working bureaucratic system before Rome split for the vast majority of conquered regions and the Medina Constitution was lightyears beyond the organizing systems of the petty warlords that festered in the interval.

>huge taxe
>less that what they were paying under the roman empire
>don't even have to serve in the army

>So if a muslim decides to crash for the night in your church and have his way with your daughter you could only stand there and watch. If you so much as gave a peep of with your head. And if after he's done raping your daughter he burns down the church no more church to you.
Nice headcanon

depends entirely on who the ruling caliph/emir was

moslems are actually considered benevolent during those days,especially in lawless arabia
Their dependence on the koran and the words of autistic mohmed ensured their stagnation though

What about the Muslims in the attacking counties?

>I know they quickly got to India,

They werent quick, Arabs had to give up any designs into the india proper after there multiple failed attempts between 712-740 AD, they were checked by the alliance of the previously warring Chalukyas, Gurjara Pratiharas kingdoms.

It wasnt until after the collapse of the Gurjara Pratiharas and the rise of the Rajputs along with the Turkic invasions and establishment of the Ghorids and Gaurids that really set the road for Delhi Sultanate in northern india which was in 1197 AD.

>Lol, Hindoos are just butthurt and make up figures for >muh genocide
Nice way to wave away a complex and conflict ridden relationship. Typical mudshit nonsense.

>The point was that conversion to Islam brought with it a host of benefits that made it very attractive to people who weren't super committed to their religion.
Until the Abbassid revolution, non-Arab muslims (mawali) were second-class citizens. That means they were inferior to Arabs on every scale : political, financial, military.

>For the most part very tolerantly.
uh no. They persecuted them severely and destroyed their holy places.

Not great. Muslim posters, as well as some misguided left-leaning individuals, will say the opposite. But on the other side, right wing types will claim exaggerated hostility.

They had less rights. They had to pay jizya. They were subjected to weird rules like not building their places of worship higher than islamic places of worship. In some cases, like with yemenite jews, muslims were allowed to be physically violent and a Jew wasn't allowed to fight back.

There were cases of Jewish girls being abducted by Muslims in places like Libya and Yemen, although I think the Ottomans would help the Jewish community return those girls in North Africa.

There were odd synagogue burnings, the odd pogrom. Same old, same old. Not that different from Europe.

I imagine christians in the MiddleEast went through the same stuff.

>muslims were allowed to be physically violent and a Jew wasn't allowed to fight back.
Source ?
I know the whole humiliating concept thing like how Christians would have to stand up for Muslims and give them their own seats if they happened to walk in on their assemblies but i think there was always a line drawn at wealth and person, as in Muslims couldn't just up and burn your shit whenever they decided to (at least on paper).

very badly

humiliating disbelief concept*

It says here: projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/muslims-and-jews/muslims-and-jews-in-history/history-of-the-jews-in-yemen.html

And the bibliography: projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/muslims-and-jews/muslims-and-jews-in-history/bibliography.html

I know this will be dismissed because it was written by mostly Jewish authors. But I doubt they're lying. If anything, they tend to play down the persecution.

>I know this will be dismissed because it was written by mostly Jewish authors.
Nah it seems (somewhat) balanced